“little piece of skin”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to soon deliver an official recommendation on whether or not parents should have their baby boys circumcised. Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics may revise its previous stance. 
According to the Washington Post there is new research indicating that circumcision may have more health benefits than previously thought, including reducing the risk for getting the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases. 
These findings however, don’t change the fact that this is a very controversial issue and emotionally-charged debate. While most people in American society upbraid cultures that practice female genital cutting, many also defend circumcision for cultural and/or religious reasons. Others say the procedure is not different from female genital cutting and should be stopped. 
Mark Alanis of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston and author of a history of circumcision said this in the Post article:
“People care way too much about this little piece of skin… At the end of the day, it’s unlikely to significantly change your child’s life for better or worse.”
What do you think? 

2 Comments

  1. The clitoral hood is the female equivalent of the male foreskin. It is currently against the law in the USA to remove the clitoral hood of a female. Double standard?

    check out:

    http://www.intactamerica.org

  2. Actually that’s not true. Female circumcision makes it impossible for a woman to have pleasurable sex. I have met very few circumcised men who care that they are circumcised. Uncircumcised men, however, can’t shut up about it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*